Yevamot 172

Chapter 172

א לכהן לכהן ולא ללוי אימא אף לכהן מאי טעמא דר' עקיבא דכתיב (במדבר יח, כו) ואל הלוים תדבר ואמרת אליהם בלוים קא משתעי קרא ואידך כדר' יהושע ב"ל דאמר ר' יהושע ב"ל בעשרים וארבעה מקומות נקראו כהנים לוים וזה אחד מהם (יחזקאל מד, טו) והכהנים הלוים בני צדוק
1 To the priest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Belongs the first tithe. B.B. 81b, Keth. 261, Hul. 13 lb. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> 'To the priest', but not to the Levite!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Scripture, surely, assigned the tithe to the Levite! ');"><sup>2</sup></span> — Read: To the priest also. What is R. Akiba's reason? — Because it is written, Moreover thou shalt speak unto the Levites, and say unto them;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 26, referring to tithe. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ב ור"ע הכא לא מצית אמרת דכתיב (במדבר יח, לא) ואכלתם אותו בכל מקום מי שיכול לאוכלו בכל מקום יצא כהן שאין יכול לאוכלו בבית הקברות ואידך כל היכא דבעי דלא בעי חומה ואי אכיל ליה בטומאת הגוף לא לקי
2 Scripture thus refers specifically to the Levites. And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar b. Azariah. How could he include the priests? ');"><sup>4</sup></span> — His view follows that of R. Joshua b. Levi. For R. Joshua b. Levi stated: In twenty-four passages were the priests described as Levites, and the following is one of them: But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. XLIV, 15. ');"><sup>5</sup></span> And R. Akiba? You cannot say so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That by Levites the priests also were meant. ');"><sup>6</sup></span> here; for it is written, And ye may eat it in every place,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 31. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ג ההיא גינתא דהוה שקיל רבי אלעזר בן עזריה מעשר ראשון מינה אזל ר"ע אהדריה לפתחא לבי קברי אמר עקיבא בתרמילו ואנא חיי
3 [it is to be given to him only] who 'may eat it in every place'; a priest, however, is excluded since he may not eat it in a graveyard.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which he may not enter owing to the prohibition of defiling himself for the dead. Cf. Lev. XXI, 1ff. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> And the other? — [The meaning<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of In every place (Num. XVIII, 31). ');"><sup>9</sup></span> is] wherever he wishes: Neither is it required [to eat it within the] wall<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of Jerusalem, outside of which the eating of certain consecrated foodstuffs was forbidden. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> nor is a man subject to flogging for eating it while his body is levitically unclean.
ד איתמר מפני מה קנסו לוים במעשר פליגי בה רבי יונתן וסביא חד אמר שלא עלו בימי עזרא וח"א כדי שיסמכו כהנים עליו בימי טומאתן
4 There was a certain garden from which R. Eleazar b. Azariah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was a priest, cf. Ber. 27b. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> used to receive the first tithe. R. Akiba went and transferred its gate so that it faced a graveyard.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that R. Eleazar b. Azariah (v. supra n. 9) was prevented from entering it (cf. supra n. 6). ');"><sup>12</sup></span> 'Akiba with his bag',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Reference to the shepherd's wallet. R. Akiba was a herdsman in his early life (cf. Keth. 62b). [Me'iri: Though R. Akiba may have to return to his shepherd's wallet, I can manage to live without his tithe]. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> the other remarked, 'and I have to live'!
ה בשלמא למאן דאמר שלא עלו משום הכי קנסינהו אלא למ"ד כדי שיסמכו עליו כהנים בימי טומאתן משום כהנים קנסינהו ללוים אלא כולי עלמא קנסא שלא עלו בימי עזרא והכא בהא קמיפלגי מר סבר קנסא לעניים ומר סבר כהנים בימי טומאתן עניים נינהו
5 It was stated: Why were the Levites penalized [by being deprived of the] tithe?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A provision was made at some time (v. infra) that tithe shall not be given to the Levites in accordance with the Pentateuchal law but to the priests (cf. Sot. 47b, Hul. 131b). ');"><sup>14</sup></span> — R. Jonathan and Sabia [are in dispute on the matter]. One holds: Because they did not go up<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To Judaea. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> in the days of Ezra;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who led some forty thousand exiles from Babylon to Jerusalem. [On the Levites' deprivation of their right to tithe v. Tchernowitz. H. Jewish Studies in Memory of George Alexander Kohut (Hebrew section) p. 47]. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> and the other holds: In order that the priests might depend upon it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The tithe. ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
ו בשלמא למאן דאמר קנסא לעניים משום הכי אהדריה ר"ע לפתחא לבי קברי אלא למאן דאמר לכהנים אמאי אהדריה לפתחא לבי קברי הכי קאמר ליה אי דקא אתית בתורת קנסא אית לך ואי קא אתית בתורת חלוקה לית לך
6 during the days of their uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When terumah is forbidden to them. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> According to him who holds [that the Levites were deprived of the tithe] because 'they did not go up', one can well understand why they were penalized. According to him, however, who gave as the reason, 'In order that the priests may depend upon it during the days of their uncleanness', were the Levites penalized for the sake of the priests! Rather, all agree<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'all the world', R. Jonathan and Sabia. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> that the penalization was due to their not going up in the days of Ezra; they differ, however, on the following point: One is of the opinion that their forfeit belonged to the poor, while the other is of the opinion that priests, during the days of their uncleanness, are also regarded as poor. Why, then,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the opinion which maintains that the tithe was allotted to the priests in the days of Ezra. ');"><sup>20</sup></span>
ז ומנא לן דלא סליקו בימי עזרא דכתיב (עזרא ח, טו) ואקבצם אל הנהר הבא על אהוא ונחנה שם ימים שלשה ואבינה בעם ובכהנים ומבני לוי לא מצאתי שם אמר רב חסדא בתחלה לא היו מעמידים שוטרי' אלא מן הלוים שנאמר (דברי הימים ב יט, יא) ושוטרים הלוים לפניכם עכשיו אין מעמידין שוטרים אלא מישראל שנאמר ושוטרים הרבים בראשיכם:
7 did R. Akiba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who lived after Ezra. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> transfer the gate so that it faced a graveyard?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar b. Azariah as a priest was surely then entitled to it. Cur. edd. contain in parenthesis, 'According to him who said that the forfeit belonged to the poor, it can well be understood why R. Akiba transferred the entrance so that it faced a graveyard; according to him, however, who stated that it belonged to the priests, why did he transfer the entrance so that it faced a graveyard'. The reading adopted is given in the margin of cur. edd. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> — It was this that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Akiba. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> said to him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar b. Azariah. ');"><sup>24</sup></span>
ח <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> בת ישראל שניסת לכהן תאכל בתרומה מת ולה הימנו בן תאכל בתרומה ניסת ללוי תאכל במעשר מת ולה הימנו בן תאכל במעשר ניסת לישראל לא תאכל לא בתרומה ולא במעשר מת ולה הימנו בן לא תאכל לא בתרומה ולא במעשר
8 If you come [to claim it] as a forfeit, you are entitled to it; but if you come [to demand it] as your share, you have no [claim upon it]. Whence is it deduced that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Levites. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> did not go up in the days of Ezra? — It is written, And I gathered them together to the river that runneth to Ahava; and there we encamped three days,' and I viewed the people and the priests, and found there none of the sons of Levi.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezra VIII, 15. [This is apparently contradicted by the many verses in Ezra and Nehemiah which mention the Levites side by side with the priests, and as Tosaf. already points out (s.v. [H]) is against the Mishnah in Kid. 69a which includes the Levites among the ten family stocks that came up from Babylon, unless it is to be assumed that the penalty was inflicted on the Levites because they were not among the first to join Ezra]. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> R. Hisda stated: At first, officers were appointed from the Levites only, for it is said, And the officers of the Levites before you;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' II Chron. XIX, 11. ');"><sup>27</sup></span>
ט מת בנה מישראל תאכל במעשר מת בנה מלוי תאכל בתרומה מת בנה מכהן לא תאכל לא בתרומה ולא במעשר
9 but now, officers are appointed from the Israelites only, for it is said, 'And officers over you shall come from the majority'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such a text cannot be traced in our Bible and may represent a verse from a lost apocryphal text. Some commentators regard it as a quotation from memory, based on Deut. I, 13, 15; but the respective dates of Ezra and Deut. would create chronological difficulties. (v. Golds.). ');"><sup>28</sup></span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. THE DAUGHTER OF AN ISRAELITE WHO WAS MARRIED TO A PRIEST MAY EAT <i>TERUMAH</i>. IF HE DIED AND SHE HAS A SON BY HIM SHE MAY CONTINUE TO EAT <i>TERUMAH</i>. IF SHE WAS [SUBSEQUENTLY]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After having had a child from the priest. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> MARRIED TO A LEVITE, SHE MAY EAT OF THE TITHE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not of terumah. Her priestly status is lost. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> IF THE LATTER DIED AND SHE HAD A SON BY HIM, SHE MAY CONTINUE TO EAT OF THE TITHE. IF SHE WAS [SUBSEQUENTLY] MARRIED TO AN ISRAELITE SHE MAY EAT NEITHER <i>TERUMAH</i> NOR TITHE. IF THE LATTER DIED AND SHE HAS A SON BY HIM, SHE MAY EAT NEITHER <i>TERUMAH</i> NOR TITHE. IF HER SON BY THE ISRAELITE DIED, SHE MAY AGAIN EAT OF THE TITHE. IF HER SON BY THE LEVITE DIED SHE MAY AGAIN EAT <i>TERUMAH</i>. IF HER SON BY THE PRIEST DIED, SHE MAY EAT NEITHER <i>TERUMAH</i> NOR TITHE.
Previous ChapterNext Chapter